Modi, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiff Jaskaran against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Sikar dated 27th May,1952 in a suit for recovery of money by which he returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under O.7.r. 10 of the Civil procedure Code.

2. It is unnecessary to state the facts of this case at length in view of the conclusion at which I have arrived that this appeal must go back to the learned District Judge concerned in whose court it was originally filed, for disposal on merits. A few facts may, however, be stated which have culminated in the presentation of this appeal, here.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the 25th May, 1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sambhar and eventually it was disposed of by the Civil Judge,Sikar to whom it had been transferred in the meantime. The Civil Judge decided all the other issues except that of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff, but as he came to the finding that the defendants did not actually live within the territorial jurisdiction of his Court, he concluded that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit and in that view ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the aforesaid ordered dated 27th May,1952 in the Court of the District Judge,Sikar on the 2nd July, 1952. It appears that this appeal was registered in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sikar and thence on the abolition of that Court, it was transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Jhunjhanu where it remained pending till 9th October, 1954. By an order passed on the last mentioned date, the learned District Judge, Jhunjhanu returned the memorandum of appeal to the Advocate for the plaintiff—appellant Jaskaran, for presentation in this Court. Thereupon, the appeal was actually filed in this Court on the 29th October, 1954. It is convenient to mention at this stage that the Court was closed from the 24th October, 1954 to 28th October, 1954 on account of Dewali Holidays. The office raised the question that the appeal was barred by limitation. The appeal was, however,admitted by a division bench subject to objection by the respondents. It is to be regretted that no one has appeared on their behalf in this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue the question of limitation and placed a few facts in that connection for the consideration of the Court. While this matter was being canvassed the question struck me whether the appeal was in law properly presented in the Court of the District Judge on the 2nd July, 1952 because if it was properly filed, the appeal must go back to him for disposal on merits.

5. It is necessary in this connection to refer to the statutory provisions on the question of the proper venue of appeal in so for as they are relevant for the present case. As already stated, the suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted on the 25thMay, 1950. The trial Court ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court on the 27th May, 1952. Consequently, the appeal was filed in the court of the District Judge on the 2nd July, 1952. Now, the position as respects the venue of appeal in 1950 when this suit was instituted is governed by the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (Ordinance No. VII of 1950, hereinafter called the Ordinance of 1950). Sec.21 of that Ordinance clearly provides that an appeal from a decree or order by the Civil Judge shall lie to the District Judge. If this provision is applicable to the present case, the appeal from the decree or order of the Civil Judge in this case undoubtedly lay to the District Judge. As it happened however, while the suit was pending in the trial Court, the Ordinance of 1950 was amended by the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act No. XIV of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act of 1951). The relevant portion of sec. 21 after this amendment as inserted into it reads as follows:—

"Save as aforesaid, an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document